You're a cowboys fan so if you honestly think Michael deserves in the hall before Cris,Irving,Andre,Tim that really does show you that you are a cowboys fan which means delusional.

well, delusional or not, the hall felt he deserved to be in first. and as comical as using pro-bowls as any kind of measure of greatness, why do you put more stock in pro bowl voting than hall of fame voting? i mean, people in the hall of fame vote for who gets to join them, you know? they felt michael deserved to be with them ahead of those other guys. and i believe there's a conspiracy against cowboys in the hall; i mean, how many fucking seventies rams are in there.

oh yeah, and you didn't really respond to my post about you making andre reed's hall case on the basis of garbage yards (those are yards gained when the other team slacks off because they're throttling the loser. andre, and all of your friends were much more used tothis scenerio than michael, who often was done, as dallas was running down the clock on another win.

__________________

Can you imagine
What it would be like if you were here
I can't imagine
Can you imagine it my dear

well, delusional or not, the hall felt he deserved to be in first. and as comical as using pro-bowls as any kind of measure of greatness, why do you put more stock in pro bowl voting than hall of fame voting? i mean, people in the hall of fame vote for who gets to join them, you know? they felt michael deserved to be with them ahead of those other guys. and i believe there's a conspiracy against cowboys in the hall; i mean, how many fucking seventies rams are in there.

oh yeah, and you didn't really respond to my post about you making andre reed's hall case on the basis of garbage yards (those are yards gained when the other team slacks off because they're throttling the loser. andre, and all of your friends were much more used tothis scenerio than michael, who often was done, as dallas was running down the clock on another win.

Coaches,Fans,Players don't vote in the hall of fame

The hall of Fame is voted 100% by sports writers

If you don't think there is Bias in sports writing that's crazy.

If the fans/coaches/players voted him in also I wouldn't have as big of a deal with it but voting in Michael before Irving,Cris,Andre is just pure bullshit.

If the fans/coaches/players voted him in also I wouldn't have as big of a deal with it but voting in Michael before Irving,Criss,Andre is just pure bullshit.

my mistake; my apologies. i don't know why i thought hall of famers got a vote (i know, i was thinking of heisman voting). but still, it makes no difference. michael is in the right place.

and i do think there is a bias; sorry if that wasn't clear. i think there is a bias against the dallas cowboys (i know, i know, typical cowboys fan; i am what i am, chief). harvey martin, drew pearson, chuck howly, charles haley, ed jones, bill bates, i could go on, but i don't really wanna start another argument with you on each of these players.

look, i respect where your coming from; there are some slam dunkers who go in the hall, and then there are some that require more deliberation (remember, michael wasn't a first ballot). for me (please read that again: FOR ME), michael deserves to be in the hall of fame. he was a major piece of a dynasty, he was prolific for several years, his career was ended prematurely by injury (i guess yer mad that guys like gale sayers and dwight stephenson are in the hall), he came back from two knee reconstructions at the beginning of his career, and he just fucking rocked. if it helps you, group him more with guys like steve largent, charlie joiner, fred belitnekof, john stallworth (although irvin's stats kill those latter guys). michael was on a run first team. do you realize troy aikman never busted 3500 yards in a season? never threw for more than 20 td's once? had like 11 300 yard games? meanwhile, a little 5'9" tailback racked up more yards on the ground and more rushing td's than anyone in the history of this fine game. look at things in context. i believe reed and carter belong in the hall, and i wouldn't fall apart if fryer got in, but those guys were stat munchers, man. they don't have michael's playoff resume; michael is second in yards and receptions to you know who. and his teams won, man. i'm sorry, but you can't ignore that. michael had a direct hand in his team winning 3 championships. the aggregate superbowls of your list of statistical darlings is zero, man. zero. whether you like it or not, that counts for something.

but i personally feel like we have reached an impasse. i do see where your coming from, i just don't agree. we've tried our hardest to make our cases with varying degrees of politeness, and it's cool. that's why football is so awesome, debates like this. i think michael irvin is a great, all time receiver, and i'm both biased as a cowboy fan and a pretty knowledgeable, well-rounded nfl fan. i watched all of the guys you mentioned for the entirety of their careers, and in my opinion, michael was the best of that bunch, only behind jerry rice in his era. if sterling sharpe coulda stayed healthy, if andre rison wasn't such a lunatic, if herman moore didn't inexplicably fade, i'd count them among the greats as well. and why we're at it, why no mention of rod smith from you? he had great numbers and won two superbowls.

anyway, your clearly a smart cat. let's get baked and have this conversation during an espn top ten show, kay?

__________________

Can you imagine
What it would be like if you were here
I can't imagine
Can you imagine it my dear

why no mention of rod smith from you? he had great numbers and won two superbowls.

anyway, your clearly a smart cat. let's get baked and have this conversation during an espn top ten show, kay?

I'm all for sitting at a table and barking football back and forth a doobie may just make it better!

I mentioned Rod Smith a few pages back in the group of Keenan/Jimmy/Rod

Michael was a good receiver on an excellent team and if he hadn't gotten hurt who knows what the numbers would of ended up as.

But for him to go in before the likes of Henry Ellard,Andre Reed,Cris Carter,Irving Fryar to me is just wrong.

Steve Largent never went to a superbowl and neither did Barry Sanders but when they retired there numbers were in the top 5 and when Andre Reed retired he was 3rd<<<<< that's right you read it>>> 3rd in all time in yardage and 1ST in receptions and 4th in touchdowns.

The bias is all these receivers retired within 5 years of each other so when Cris retired 2 years later he climbed the ladder to number 1 in those stats and when Fryar retired in 2000 he still had more than Michael same with Henry Ellard in 98 but because Michael had 3 rings he gets in before them even though his numbers were SIGNIFICANTLY lower? Then why Is Steve Largent in the hall of fame? It's BIAS there are plenty of Hall Of Famers that didn't even reach a superbowl but they are in the hall because their BODY OF WORK.

In his four Super Bowls, Reed recorded 27 receptions, the second most total career Super Bowl receptions in NFL history (behind Rice's 33). His 323 total Super Bowl receiving yards are the third most in Super Bowl history

Even if you say it was because it was a blowout think about Jerry Rices records in the superbowl when they blew out the Broncos and Chargers.

But I respect you! Where as I don't respect Dude because he can't handle anyones opinion but his own and just throws insults when someone doesn't agree with him that's typical troll behavior.

Michael Irvin should still be waiting to get in and in 20 years when they elect senior members through that process I wouldn't care if he got in for his body of work.

look, i respect where your coming from; there are some slam dunkers who go in the hall, and then there are some that require more deliberation (remember, michael wasn't a first ballot). for me (please read that again: FOR ME), michael deserves to be in the hall of fame. ?

The real reason Irvin wasn't first ballot was character-related backlash.

Your opinions are too uninformed and unflinching in their stupidity, ignorance and banality to deserve respect. The fact that the one thing you’re sticking to being Pro Bowls (something more given than earned like 1,000 yard seasons) shows how little your opinion is worth. The only thing Reed has is he was pretty good for a lot longer than Irvin. That’s it.

Anything like a sustained five-year period of dominant play as a top three receiver in the league? Not even fucking close and you can cling to your worthless Pro Bowl crap like a baby if you want to. Never mind how fucking laughable it is that you give less weight to three Super Bowl titles which are won and which Irvin was arguably the 2nd most important member of each of those teams than Pro Bowl nominations which are arbitrarily given. By the way, how many coaches get fired every offseason? There’s your fucking esteemed Pro Bowl voters, jackass.

Getting back to my point about importance to the dynasty though; let’s be honest here, Aikman was the starting quarterback when the team started 0-2 missing Emmitt during his contract holdout in ’93 and when they started 2-3 in ’96 because of Irvin’s suspension. The fact that you can just shrug off Irvin being the 2nd or 3rd most important player (and really the triplets were all equally important) on a three-time Super Bowl Champion shows what a fucking joke your opinion is.

Of course, the Hall obviously doesn’t give a shit or penalize Irvin for getting off to a slow start in his first three seasons (the real reason Reed and all these others have a slight longevity edge numbers-wise) due to a mix of injuries and being on a bad-to-average team whether random dweebs on the interwebs do or not. And that’s the way it should be; as long as a guy’s career wasn’t cut severely short like Sterling Sharpe or Terrell Davis, if their very best was Hall Of Fame worthy, that’s what truly matters and that’s what they’re getting voted in on; not padding their stats by sticking around to the age of 37 to 38 with average seasons. Nearly 12,000 yards on 750 receptions are significant milestones; especially for a guy whose career got cut short at 33. The Hall Of Fame would suck dick if all it did was reward above average to pretty good longevity which is what your career was if you only had four 1,000 yard seasons in a 16-year career.

Looking at each of Reed’s individual seasons, none of them were really great and he certainly never had the sustained greatness Irvin had for half a decade from ’91-’95 or a season comparable to Irvin’s best two seasons. This is indisputable and you’re a disingenuous punk or a moron if you’re ignoring plain as day numbers with your bullshit more Pro Bowls excuse; which aren’t even statistics. And yes, your Pro Bowl horseshit is stupid; Irvin’s ’96-’98 seasons were all better or comparable statistically with Reed’s four non-1,000 yard Pro Bowl seasons. Irvin: two 1,000 yard seasons where he didn’t get insipid little Pro Bowl nominations whereas Reed because it is a popularity contest made the Pro Bowl four times without even having 1,000 yards AND over other AFC guys that had more yardage than him.

Conveniently ignoring that Reed was never consistently great like Irvin just because of arbitrary crap like Pro Bowls is an opinion you’re allowed to have like you’re allowed to believe the moon is made out of cheese.

As for all these great seasons you’re buttering Reed’s grits for in the name of longevity after he turned 33; well, he actually put up: 880, 795, 536 and 103 yards. Wow, that is so fucking excellent there’s no way if Irvin hadn’t gotten prematurely retired (to the point of risking paralysis had he returned) he never would’ve been able to match that. NOT.

As for your receptions vs. yardage inanity and you somehow not getting that 1,000 yards has been a benchmark milestone much longer and more tangible than bogus Pro Bowls; I guess you’d rather have more receptions for less yardage than less receptions for more yardage.

I see somebody brought up Carter, who even though he was a TD machine, he caught a lot of worthless short pass dogshit; the type of stuff the Cowboys simply didn’t have to forcefeed to Irvin.

On the subject of junk yardage and chunk yardage (plays of 20-plus yards and 40-plus yards) the numbers clearly show Carter caught a lot more junk than Irvin and despite catching 30 more balls in his best seasons than Irvin, Irvin actually had more big chunk plays on 30 fewer receptions a season.

To me, that’s more than enough compelling evidence to prove how many more significant passes Irvin caught and how much rinky dink chump change Carter caught. And although Irvin was on the much more talented overall offense, long before Carter had Moss, Jake Reed http://www.nfl.com/player/jakereed/2502609/careerstats was the receiver lined up across from Carter and he too was much better than any receiver that ever played opposite Irvin.

Furthermore, Jake Reed’s chunk plays often outnumbered Carter’s and in ’96 and ’97 his yardage totals were better than Carter’s outright. So let’s not pretend Carter had no help at all BEFORE Randy Moss. Jake Reed had something Andre Reed never even had; four consecutive 1,000 yard seasons.

Now personally I feel Carter should’ve gotten in a lot sooner than he did on the basis of being an all-time great TD machine alone. Although the Hall’s rationale for keeping him out must have been they felt he benefitted from being force fed a lot of chump change receptions as I just pointed out.
One more thing about all Carter’s TD’s. As Nancy, Dr. Z and I have all pointed out once the ball got in the red zone Irvin’s TD chances significantly went down because that was the Emmitt zone. Which is why it should be pointed out 55 or nearly half of Carter’s TD’s came from less than ten yards.

For their careers, if you consider Irvin catching 350 less passes than Carter in 75 less games, his chunk plays (31-24 edge in 40-plus yard receptions) and 1st downs measure up well. 2 out of every 3 of Irvin’s receptions went for 1st downs; Carter closer to 1 out of every 2.

It's not the Hall Of Lame Longevity. It's the Hall Of Fame. There's absolutely nothing wrong about one of three of the equally most valuable players on a three-time Super Bowl Champion getting in before a bunch of other guys of lesser or similar quality careers. If Super Bowls meant that little, then the Hall of Fame truly would be a fucking joke. Just like you're a fucking joke for comparing Irvin to David Patten and Deion Branch.

It's not the Hall Of Lame Longevity. It's the Hall Of Fame. There's absolutely nothing wrong about one of three of the equally most valuable players on a three-time Super Bowl Champion getting in before a bunch of other guys of lesser or similar quality careers. If Super Bowls meant that little, then the Hall of Fame truly would be a fucking joke. Just like you're a fucking joke for comparing Irvin to David Patten and Deion Branch.

The only Joke is you when you have no clue of the hall of fame.

when Andre Reed retired he was 3rd<<<<< that's right you read it>>> 3rd in all time in yardage and 1ST in receptions and 4th in touchdowns.

Where was Irvin? You just cannot grasp this concept and to think Pro-Bowls are meaningless is asinine when before 1995 the COACHES and PLAYERS voted them 100% in so that means COACHES respected Andre enough to vote him to the pro-bowl the same with players wow he must of been elite he must of been a well round terrifc player to go 7 straight pro-bowls.

The Hall Of Fame has over 25% of players that never won a fucking superbowl and a good portion never even played in a superbowl to think it's all about rings is FUCKING RETARDED.

If superbowls meant that much why are these players in the hall of fame? Oh that's right most of them retired at the top of the stats just like Andre Reed.

If "retired at the top of stats" is all that mattered, they'd just wait every 15 years to take a 5-second look at all-time lists like a certain muttering mouthbreather I know and induct a new class instead of inducting classes every single year.

If I'm saying it's all about rings, you're saying it's not about rings at all. Which notion is more fucking ridiculous? Yours. The very best players on dynasties get in; deal with it. That's the way it's always been. By the way, if it was all about rings, Charles Haley would've been automatic since he has five rings. Personally I don't think a good case can be made for Haley other than the rings.

But it's not all about rings; it's about being the 2nd best receiver in the league to Rice (Sharpe was also right there) over a five-year period when your team was winning three Super Bowls.

Pro Bowls don't mean shit; go watch figthure skating. In Irvin's suspension shortened '96 season, he had more yardage in 11 games than Reed had in three of his FULL Pro Bowl seasons. Think about that.